Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s aides met recently with staffers of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to warn them: Targeting vulnerable Democrats like Arkansas’s Mark Pryor on gun control could backfire on the party, several sources told POLITICO.

It didn’t work.

Ads from the Bloomberg-funded Mayors Against Illegal Guns are going up soon in Alaska, Arkansas and North Dakota — three states with Democratic senators who broke with the White House on last month’s background checks vote.

The group is also moving as many as 60 field organizers into about a dozen states where senators — Democrats and Republicans — voted against bill, with the goal of building infrastructure and countering gun rights groups like the National Rifle Association.

It’s all got Democrats nervous about keeping their hold on the Senate, if they are under attack from not only Republicans but pro-gun control forces as well. Gun control legislation gained new national momentum since last December’s shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., that left 20 children and six adults dead, but advocates know they cannot overcome the power of the NRA on Capitol Hill unless those who oppose them pay an electoral price for doing so, and they’ve shown no sign of backing down.

Bloomberg’s group has made its choice: Its radio spots in Arkansas will target the state’s African-American community, “without which Mark Pryor doesn’t have a prayer of getting reelected,” said Mark Glaze, director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

Four Senate Democrats — Pryor, Max Baucus of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota — joined with Republicans to derail the bill, drawing howls of protest from the gun control movement and complaints from the White House.

But it’s Pryor’s fate that has Democratic leadership most worried.

Senate Democrats point to the example of former Arkansas Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln as a warning. Labor unions, angered by Lincoln’s vote against legislation they backed, helped fund a primary challenger in 2010. Lincoln narrowly won that primary, and then was swamped that November by Republican John Boozman.

Democratic senators and aides also note that Pryor has backed President Barack Obama and the leadership on other big issues such as Obamacare, banking reform and taxes, and Reid will need him on upcoming immigration votes.

“How does hurting Mark Pryor help them?” asked one top Senate Democrat, speaking on condition of anonymity. “I just don’t see how it gets them where they want to go.”

For his part, Pryor says he’s not too concerned.

“In today’s world, whether it’s a wealthy donor or a super PAC, sometimes they come in these races and throw a bunch of money around,” Pryor said in an interview. “I think in Arkansas, people know me pretty well, and they know I work very hard to try to listen and be responsive to the state. I’m always going to have people make these political threats.”

But leadership would still rather see Bloomberg look elsewhere. For instance, it could work to reelect red-state Democrats who supported the background checks bill, such as Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Kay Hagan of North Carolina.

Another gun control group, Americans for Responsible Solutions — founded by former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), who was severely wounded in a January 2011 shooting — is running radio ads praising these Democrats, as well as Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine).

Senate Democrats are also urging Bloomberg and other gun control advocates to focus on flipping Republicans like Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire. Mayors Against Illegal Guns went up Tuesday with a TV spot criticizing Ayotte that will air through May 17 in the Boston and Manchester, N.H., media markets. It also plans ads aimed at Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.).

Americans for Responsible Solutions is running radio ads in Kentucky and New Hampshire, respectively, slamming Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Ayotte for opposing the measure. The NRA, which vehemently opposed the background checks bill, countered with its own radio ads praising the lawmakers.

In an op-ed that ran in the Houston Chronicle over the weekend — in the city where the NRA was holding its annual meeting — Vice President Joe Biden warned that senators who voted against the bill will be punished by voters next year.

“They are learning that Newtown really did shock the conscience of the nation and that inaction will not be tolerated by Democrats, Republicans or independents,” Biden wrote.

The White House has also threatened to use Organizing for Action — the nonprofit group created out of Obama’s reelection campaign — to target vulnerable Democrats like Pryor over the background checks vote.

On Heitkamp, who also voted against the background checks bill, Glaze said Mayors Against Illegal Guns must show there is a price to be paid for voting against the measure, even though she’s not up for reelection until 2018.

“It’s our job to make sure that people who care about this understand that she screwed up,” Glaze said

Democrats, though, fear that any public effort to “shame” Pryor would have two results: First, he will just dig in further and become less likely to support any revised background checks package; and second, Pryor would be hurt by the effort, leading to a Republican who openly opposes any gun control-related legislation — and other Democratic priorities — winning the seat.

Pryor — who had $3.4 million in his campaign coffers, including tens of thousands of dollars from other Senate Democrats — said he’s not worried about the fallout from his opposition to the bipartisan background checks bill drafted by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.). Democrats say privately that Pryor was aware before the April 17 vote that he would see Bloomberg-funded ads in Arkansas, with the only question being whether they would be pro or con.

“I think that’s one thing the American people are frustrated about, these purity tests,” Pryor said. “Quite honestly, I’m here to represent Arkansas. I think people on all sides, in all parties and all groups, they need to go back to civics class and maybe read the Constitution and realize we’re here to represent our states and the people who sent us to Washington.”

Pryor, first elected to the Senate in 2002, claimed he’s not worried about his poor poll numbers or possible challengers, including GOP Rep. Tom Cotton, or whether MAIG or other progressive groups dump money into the race.

“I get threatened politically all the time,” he said. “Literally, it’s just part of my job because I don’t line up in this ‘red versus blue’ paradigm. I’m in the middle somewhere.”

Republicans, for their part, were pleased that gun control groups would slam Pryor.

“Mark Pryor doesn’t know what he believes,” said Brad Dayspring, communications director for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. “The same guy voted for [an assault weapons] ban just a few years ago, so it’s no wonder that the Bloomberg group is trying to pressure him. The larger the spotlight on the Second Amendment and the gun issue is in Arkansas, the brighter Pryor’s blatant hypocrisy shines.”

As Manchin works to revise his bill, with an eye toward trying to get it back on the floor next month following Senate action on immigration reform, Pryor said he is open to looking at the legislation again.

“If someone wants to put something together, I will look at it and I’ll make a judgment based on what they put together,” Pryor said on Friday, according to KLRT-TV in Little Rock.

Obama and Company plan to work a campaign through the states and get legislation passed at that level.

__________________My Message to President-Elect Donald Trump:America did NOT became great because of what government did. America became great because of what the U.S. Constitution prevented our government from doing. The people made America great.

Along with bombs and bombers, guns seem to be all the media wants to talk about these days. Death is sexy to our miscreant media, especially when people are killed on purpose. And when that happens, itís all the newspapers and news stations will print and broadcast, in turn making these events appear worse than they are in reality.

To understand this, one need only look at the difference in coverage between the Texas fertilizer plant explosion, which killed at least 14 confirmed people and injured 200 more at the time of writing this, versus the coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing, which only killed three and injured a hundred others. Texas was on TV for a day, tops, while weíre still hearing about Boston and will for many weeks to come.

Where the media really didnít care too much about the Texas incident, once a kid was killed at a race, the Boston bombing is now a foil for everything from gun control to immigration in the wake of Sandy Hook, with both sides of the political spectrum using it against the other. What about Texas, you ask? Nothing but crickets chirping from the mainstream media at the moment. Recent studies have shown that people who consume large amounts of mass media often feel more insecure, are less informed, or canít distinguish between news and what passes as news, what with all the opinion youíll find in news today.*

But when it comes to something as deadly serious as guns and crime, Americans canít afford the media hyperbole, misinformation and disinformation.*

A big reason they didn't care is that it was in Texas. We did see some opportunists in the piss-stream media blaming the explosion on anti-govt deregulatory problems that are so typical of red state rubes. Politicizing events is ok but only if its one sided

Well, if psychopaths didn't have such easy access to guns, then they couldn't do as much damage. It's not really necessarily easy to identify and prevent the psychopaths from doing their psychopathic thing before they do it, and if they have a gun...

That doesn't mean the political realities aren't there, however.

Timothy McVeigh says people who think like you are idiots.

__________________
"Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up with hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, and disregard of all the rules."

It is just pure, unadulterated emotional thinking. And it drives me up the ****ing wall. We have people advocating making laws based on how they feel versus fact and logic.

Feelings are fine to a point but, you have to learn to control them. Anger is a great example. Nothing wrong with feeling it, it's human nature. But if you don't control it you can end up hurting, or even murdering someone.

Making decisions based on emotions and feelings is stupid and dangerous.

__________________
"Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up with hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, and disregard of all the rules."

I'm fairly shocked that Madigan switched sides on this issue, especially considering his twat of a daughter is the attorney general and is big time anti-gun. I guess he saw the writing on the wall. In any event, conceal carry is one step closer to reality in Illinois.

SPRINGFIELD-The Illinois House overwhelmingly moved Friday to end the state's prohibition on carrying concealed guns in a vote gun-rights advocates predicted would lower crime rates despite warnings from critics the bill is "dangerous."

"Concealed carry works. In every place it's been in this country, crime has gone down dramatically," said state Rep. Brandon Phelps (D-Harrisburg), the bill's chief House sponsor.

His measure -- backed by House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) but opposed by his daughter, Attorney General Lisa Madigan - passed the House 85-30, with one voting present. The bill, which needed 71 votes to pass, now moves to the Senate, where its faces opposition from Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago).

Besides Cullerton, Gov. Pat Quinn, Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle all lined up against the legislation, describing it as a dangerous overreach that would flood Illinois' streets with more guns and gut local gun-control laws.

"This legislation is wrong for Illinois," Quinn said in a statement issued shortly after the roughly two-hour House debate. "It was wrong yesterday in committee, it's wrong today, and it's wrong for the future of public safety in our state.

"The principle of home rule is an important one. As written, this legislation is a massive overreach that would repeal critical gun-safety ordinances in Chicago, Cook County and across Illinois," he continued. "We need strong gun safety laws that protect the people of our state. Instead, this measure puts public safety at risk."

Friday's roll call, which which carried more than enough votes to override a Quinn veto, represents a response to a December ruling by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. That federal appeals panel in Chicago tossed out Illinois' last-in-the-nation prohibition on concealed carry and ordered Quinn and lawmakers to come up with a law allowing it by June 9th.

Phelps' legislation would impose a uniform standard across the state that would permit gun owners to obtain five-year, concealed-carry permits for $150 after undergoing training and background checks. The measure would invalidate local governments' gun-control laws, like Chicago and Cook County's ban on assault weapons.

"The 7th Circuit had a very specific directive," said Rep. Ann Williams (D-Chicago), an opponent to Phelps' legislation. "That directive was to provide for concealed carry in the state of Illinois. We go so far beyond that in this bill by preemption and, in effect, repealing, invalidating, hundreds if not thousands of local laws and ordinances. I think we need to think long and hard before we do this."

Another "no" vote, Rep. Christian Mitchell (D-Chicago), ridiculed the fact the National Rifle Association wasn't publicly advocating for the legislation even though it gave the group much of what it wanted.

"The idea the NRA is 'neutral' on this is like saying that there's a fox 'neutral' on an appropriation to defund henhouse security," Mitchell said.

The roll call was driven by support from the powerful House speaker, who has been a long-time opponent to concealed-carry but said he switched sides in the debate because of the court edict and after watching the results of a series of House votes on the issue earlier this spring.

In mid-April, concealed-carry legislation drafted by gun-control advocates failed by drawing only 31 votes in the House. A day later, a bill written by gun-rights forces drew 64 votes, a total below the 71 votes it needed but still far more than its rival plan.

Madigan said the NRA-backed plan originally had 75 votes before he worked against it and peeled off 11 votes.

"Those vote counts are very telling," Madigan said in explaining his new posture on concealed-carry. "They tell the reason why I stand before you today, changing a position, which I've advocated for well over 20 years. But that's what happens in a democracy, where there's free and open debate and people are called upon to cast votes in legislative bodies.

"Over time," the speaker continued, "the people who sent them to legislative bodies change their thinking. And in a democracy, it's not only OK to do that, it's expected that there be changes in thinking by people and legislators consistent with how the people in the country feel."

Other supporters argued that the state's blanket prohibition on carrying concealed weapons, particularly in Chicago, has played a role in the city's out-of-control gun violence.

"We have the Second Amendment of the Constitution, and we in the state of Illinois have chosen to ignore that over many, many years. And I've said on this House floor before and I'll say it again: Why is it that we in the state of Illinois are the very last to do this?" said state Rep. Mike Bost (R-Murphysboro), a gun-rights lawmaker. "Do we think we're smarter? If we're so smart, why do we have a city that has the highest crime rate in the nation if this works so well by not having concealed carry?"

After the vote, Madigan predicted the legislation would rack up a similarly lopsided roll call if it gets called in the Senate before next Friday's scheduled legislative adjournment, a scenario Cullerton would not address after the House vote.

The Senate president said he intends to measure support for the bill within his 40-member caucus on Monday, but he made clear his intention to try burying the bill and offering up some form of legislative Plan B on guns.

"I'm going to try to defeat the bill, and we're going to have a caucus on it on Monday," he told reporters.

"Maybe we'll have a caucus and see there is no support, and we'll go ahead with an alternative. Once the members realize there's an alternative that's very similar, almost identical to the House alternative, maybe we can avoid this," he continued. "Maybe we can focus our attention on concealed carry, which is what the courts tasked us with doing, and then solve that part of the problem we have facing us."

The speaker's daughter, the attorney general, still has not decided whether to appeal the federal appeals court ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court but, like Cullerton, does not like the way Phelps' legislation is crafted. Like Emanuel, her office issued a statement against the bill but remained silent during Thursday's House hearing.

Both her office and the speaker confirmed Friday her position on the legislation was raised directly with her father.

"Throughout the session, our legislative team has expressed to legislators that the [attorney general] has policy concerns about the broad pre-emption of home-rule authority and the 'shall issue' approach," said Natalie Bauer, a spokeswoman for the attorney general.

Asked what how the speaker responded when the attorney general raised those concerns to him, Bauer said, "You'll have to ask the speaker himself about his response."

When asked that specific question, the speaker displayed a lawyer-like, poker face.